The Authentication of ʿĀṣim ibn Bahdalah: A Critical Analysis of Scholarly Praise and Minor Criticisms

✍ Written by: Abu Hamzah Salafi

This article concerns the authentication of the ḥadīth narrator ʿĀṣim ibn Bahdalah, Abū Bakr al-Qārī al-Kūfī (known as ʿĀṣim ibn Abī al-Najūd). According to the majority of ḥadīth scholars, he is ṣadūq / ḥasan al-ḥadīth. In some places, brief criticisms from Ibn Ḥajar and al-Dāraquṭnī are reported. In this article, we shall:

① Present the authentication of ʿĀṣim from twenty Imams.
② Clarify the remarks/criticisms of Ibn Ḥajar and al-Dāraquṭnī.
③ Conclude that ʿĀṣim’s ḥadīth is ḥasan and acceptable for evidence, and that the criticisms against him are not disqualifying in light of the majority’s authentication.

​

① Imām Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal (241 AH)​

Arabic Text:

918 – سَأَلْتُهُ عَنْ عَاصِمِ بْنِ بَهْدَلَةَ، فَقَالَ: ثِقَةٌ، رَجُلٌ صَالِحٌ خَيْرٌ، ثِقَةٌ، وَالْأَعْمَشُ أَحْفَظُ مِنْهُ.

Translation:
I asked Imām Aḥmad about ʿĀṣim ibn Bahdalah. He said:
“He is trustworthy (thiqah), a righteous and good man, trustworthy; however, al-Aʿmash has stronger memory than him.”

Reference:

Reference: al-ʿIlal wa Maʿrifat al-Rijāl

– Imām Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal (d. 241 AH)

Clarification:
◈ Imām Aḥmad said “thiqah” twice and added “a righteous, good man,” which testifies to his piety and integrity.
◈ “Al-Aʿmash has stronger memory” is merely comparative, not a weakening.

② Imām Yaḥyā ibn Maʿīn (233 AH)​

Arabic Text:

157 – عَاصِمُ بْنُ بَهْدَلَةَ ثِقَةٌ لَا بَأْسَ بِهِ، وَهُوَ مِنْ نُظَرَاءِ الْأَعْمَشِ، وَالْأَعْمَشُ أَثْبَتُ مِنْهُ.

Translation:
“ʿĀṣim ibn Bahdalah is trustworthy; there is no harm in him. He is among the peers of al-Aʿmash, though al-Aʿmash is more firmly established than him.”

Reference:

Reference: Min Kalām Abī Zakariyyā Yaḥyā ibn Maʿīn fī al-Rijāl (Riwayah Ṭahmān)

Clarification:
◈ Explicit authentication: “thiqah lā ba’sa bihi.”
◈ The comparison does not constitute criticism.

③ Imām Abū Zurʿah al-Rāzī (264 AH)​

Arabic Text:

… سألت أبا زرعة عن عاصم بن بهدلة، فقال: ثقة.

Translation:
Abū Zurʿah was asked about ʿĀṣim ibn Bahdalah and said: “Trustworthy.”

Reference:

Reference: al-Jarḥ wa al-Taʿdīl

– Ibn Abī Ḥātim

Clarification:
◈ A concise yet strong authentication from a major critic.
◈ “Thiqah” is among the highest levels of praise.

④ Imām al-ʿIjlī (261 AH)​

Arabic Text:

763 – … وكان ثقة في الحديث، ولا يختلف عنه في حديث زر وأبي وائل.

Translation:
“He was trustworthy in ḥadīth, and no اختلاف is reported regarding his narrations from Zirr and Abū Wāʾil.”

Reference:

Reference: Tārīkh al-Thiqāt

Clarification:
◈ Clearly stated: “thiqah in ḥadīth.”
◈ No discrepancy in his narrations from key teachers, indicating precision.

⑤ Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥazm (456 AH)​

Arabic Text:

… قَالَ عَلِيٌّ: هَذَا إِسْنَادٌ صَحِيحٌ كَالشَّمْسِ لَا مَغْمَزَ فِيهِ.

Translation:
“This chain is authentic like the sun, with no flaw in it.”

Reference:

Reference: al-Muḥallā bil-Āthār

Clarification:
◈ Described as “authentic like the sun,” an expression of the highest commendation.

⑥ al-Haythamī (807 AH)​

Arabic Text:

… وَفِيهِ عَاصِمُ بْنُ بَهْدَلَةَ، وَحَدِيثُهُ حَسَنٌ.

Translation:
“In it is ʿĀṣim ibn Bahdalah, and his ḥadīth is ḥasan.”

Reference:

Reference: Majmaʿ al-Zawā’id

Clarification:
◈ Explicit statement: “His ḥadīth is ḥasan.”
◈ Therefore, acceptable and suitable as proof.

⑦ al-Ḥākim al-Naysābūrī (405 AH)​

Arabic Text:

… كُلُّهَا صَحِيحَةٌ … إِذْ هُوَ إِمَامٌ مِنْ أَئِمَّةِ الْمُسْلِمِينَ.

Translation:
“All of them are authentic… for he is an Imam among the Imams of the Muslims.”

Reference:

Reference: al-Mustadrak ʿalā al-Ṣaḥīḥayn

Clarification:
◈ Declared his narrations ṣaḥīḥ.
◈ Counted him among the Imams of the Muslims.

⑧ al-Būṣīrī (840 AH)​

Arabic Text:

… هَذَا إِسْنَادٌ رُوَاتُهُ ثِقَاتٌ.

Translation:
“This is a chain whose narrators are trustworthy.”

Reference:

Reference: Ittiḥāf al-Khīrah al-Mahrah

⑨ Ibn Ḥibbān (354 AH)​

Arabic Text:

… وَكَانَ ثِقَةً.

Translation:
“He was trustworthy.”

Reference:

Reference: al-Thiqāt

⑩ Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr (463 AH)​

Arabic Text:

… هُوَ حَدِيثٌ صَحِيحٌ حَسَنٌ ثَابِتٌ مَحْفُوظٌ مَرْفُوعٌ.

Translation:
“It is a ḥadīth that is authentic, ḥasan, established, preserved, and marfūʿ.”

Reference:

Reference: Jāmiʿ Bayān al-ʿIlm wa Faḍlih

⑪ Ibn Shāhīn (385 AH)​

Arabic Text:

… ثِقَةٌ، رَجُلٌ صَالِحٌ، خَيْرٌ.

Translation:
“Trustworthy, a righteous and good man.”

Reference:

Reference: Tārīkh Asmā’ al-Thiqāt

⑫ al-Mundhirī (656 AH)​

Arabic Text:

… وَهَذَا إِسْنَادٌ حَسَنٌ.

Translation:
“This chain is ḥasan.”

Reference:

Reference: al-Targhīb wa al-Tarhīb

⑬ al-Sakhāwī (902 AH)​

Arabic Text:

… بسند حسن …

Translation:
“With a ḥasan chain.”

Reference:

Reference: al-Maqāṣid al-Ḥasanah

⑭ Imām al-Tirmidhī (279 AH)​

Arabic Text:

قَالَ أَبُو عِيسَى: هَذَا حَدِيثٌ حَسَنٌ صَحِيحٌ.

Translation:
“This ḥadīth is ḥasan ṣaḥīḥ.”

Reference:

Reference: Sunan al-Tirmidhī

⑮ Badr al-Dīn al-ʿAynī (855 AH)​

Described him among the “noble, trustworthy, pious, and righteous scholars.”

⑯ Jamāl al-Dīn al-Zaylaʿī (762 AH)​

Arabic Text:

… حَافِظَانِ ثِقَتَانِ.

Translation:
“Two ḥāfiẓ, trustworthy narrators.”

Reference:

Reference: Naṣb al-Rāyah

⑰ Imām Abū Dāwūd (275 AH)​

Arabic Text:

عَمْرُو فَوْقَهُ.

Translation:
“ʿAmr is above him.”

Clarification:
◈ Preference given to another narrator, not weakening ʿĀṣim.
◈ Abū Dāwūd narrated many of his reports without criticism.

⑱ Ibn Kathīr (774 AH)​

Arabic Text:

… وَهَذَا إِسْنَادٌ جَيِّدٌ قَوِيٌّ.
… هَذَا إِسْنَادٌ حَسَنٌ.

Translation:
“This is a good and strong chain.”
“This is a ḥasan chain.”

Reference:

Reference: Tafsīr al-Qur’ān al-ʿAẓīm

⑲ al-Dhahabī (748 AH)​

Arabic Text:

صَدُوقٌ … حُجَّةً فِي الْقُرْآنِ، صَدُوقًا فِي الْحَدِيثِ.

Translation:
“Ṣadūq… an authority in the Qur’an and truthful in ḥadīth.”

Reference:

Reference: Man Takallama Fīhi wa Huwa Muwaththaq

⑳ Imām al-Dāraquṭnī (385 AH)​

Arabic Text:

… فِي حِفْظِهِ شَيْءٌ.

Translation:
“There is something (slight weakness) in his memory.”

Reference:

Reference: Su’ālāt al-Barqānī

Clarification:
◈ A mild remark regarding memory, not a decisive weakening.
◈ He still narrated his reports in his works.

Ibn Ḥajar’s Statement and Its Clarification​

Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar (852 AH)​

Arabic Text:

صَدُوقٌ لَهُ أَوْهَامٌ.

Translation:
“Ṣadūq; he has some errors.”

Reference:

Reference: Taqrīb al-Tahdhīb

Clarification:
◈ “Ṣadūq” affirms his reliability.
◈ “He has some errors” indicates occasional mistakes, common among narrators.
◈ This does not render him weak.

Response of the Majority (Shuʿayb al-Arnā’ūṭ and others)​

Arabic Text:

… فقد وثقه يحيى بن معين، وأحمد، وأبو زرعة … وكل هؤلاء وثقوه مع معرفتهم ببعض أوهامه اليسيرة.

Translation:
“He was declared trustworthy by Yaḥyā ibn Maʿīn, Aḥmad, Abū Zurʿah… and all of them authenticated him despite knowing of his minor errors.”

Reference:

Reference: Taḥrīr Taqrīb al-Tahdhīb

Summary and Conclusion​

✔ The presented statements clearly establish that ʿĀṣim ibn Bahdalah al-Kūfī (Abū Bakr al-Qārī) is regarded by the majority of ḥadīth critics as thiqah / ṣadūq, ḥasan al-ḥadīth.

✔ Early critics such as Imām Aḥmad, Ibn Maʿīn, Abū Zurʿah, al-ʿIjlī, Ibn Ḥibbān, Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, al-Ḥākim, al-Tirmidhī, al-Haythamī, al-Būṣīrī, Ibn Shāhīn, Ibn Kathīr, al-Dhahabī, al-Zaylaʿī and others explicitly authenticated him.

✔ Ibn Ḥajar’s phrase “ṣadūq lahu awhām” and al-Dāraquṭnī’s remark “fī ḥifẓihi shay’” are mild observations, not disqualifying criticisms. They indicate relative comparison in memory, not unreliability.

✔ According to the principles of ḥadīth criticism, when minor criticism is opposed by numerous explicit authentications—especially when many scholars declared his chains ḥasan or ṣaḥīḥ—preference is given to authentication.

✔ Therefore, the narrations of ʿĀṣim ibn Bahdalah—particularly his route: ʿĀṣim → Zirr → ʿAbdullāh / Abū Wāʾil—are fundamentally ḥasan/ṣaḥīḥ, and rejecting them merely due to mention of “errors” contradicts the methodology of the ḥadīth scholars.

Conclusion:
ʿĀṣim ibn Bahdalah is ṣadūq, ḥasan al-ḥadīth / trustworthy, and the partial remarks against him do not constitute disqualifying criticism. His narrations remain acceptable for legal and theological evidence when supported by corroborating proofs.